BY M. K. BHADRAKUMAR | INDIAN PUNCHLINE | SEPTEMBER 10, 2022
The Ministry of External Affairs has done the right thing by explaining its taciturn press release on Thursday in a single sentence regarding the disengagement of troops in the area of Gogra-Hotsprings along the LAC in the Western Sector of India-China border areas.
The Official Spokesman Arindam Bagchi shared on Friday more details. Broadly, a consensus reached at the 16th round of India China Corps Commander Level Meeting on 17 July has since been fleshed out by the two sides, and the actual disengagement commenced on Thursday which will be completed on coming Monday. The following key elements draw attention:
The last two elements — prohibiting “unilateral change in status quo” and the commitment to resolve the remaining issues — are inter-related.
Simply put, there will be no attempts by either side to indulge in any “Mission Creep” to seize unilateral advantage of territory. This is hugely important, given the two vastly divergent narratives on what precipitated the standoff two years ago. How the “status quo” is to be understood is not yet in the public domain but presumably, it is to mutual satisfaction.
A judicious mix of firmness and realism made this agreement possible. Some Indian commentators have rushed to belittle its importance by linking it to a possible meeting between Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Chinese President Xi Jinping next week at Samarkand.
That said, if there is going to be a meeting at Samarkand, this disengagement provides a setting for constructive discussion. Both governments have high stakes in maintaining peace and tranquility along the LAC in the present hugely transformative period in the world order. For China, issues of war and peace in the Taiwan Straits are a top priority.
As for India, a crucial period of adjustment to new geopolitical conditions lies ahead which presents daunting challenges to its strategic autonomy and independent foreign policies, stemming from the West’s attempts to polarise the world community against Russia and China.
Both India and China sense the high importance of pursuing their respective trajectories of economic growth and development optimally in a difficult and unfavourable climate internationally. Speaking of India, our analysts prefer — either due to ignorance or with deliberation — to sidestep the co-relation between a peaceful and tranquil border and the country’s overall economic situation.
The Ukraine conflict is adding to global inflation by raising the cost of energy and other raw commodities while an increasingly hawkish US Fed is tightening its policies, and significantly reducing its balance sheet. There could be looming currency and foreign exchange worries. Time may have come to build up a clearing system among BRICS countries. India’s current foreign exchange reserves are at their lowest since October 2020. Persistent foreign outflows from India’s equity and debt markets have also weighed on the rupee.
There is continuing Western interference in India-China relations and the fact that the government has sequestered the bilateral track with China is not going to be to the liking of the West. Fundamentally, the contradiction is that without India, there is no “Indo-Pacific Strategy” against China.
In a recent interview with an Indian newspaper, the former Prime Minister of Australia and an acclaimed hawk on China, Kevin Rudd, posed the question that troubles the Western mind most: “What does India do ultimately, if China does unilaterally resolve the border, as Gorbachev did, with the Russian Federation within the Soviet Union in 1989?”
Rudd repeated, “what would India then do in terms of China’s rise if the border was resolved, and India and China and Russia folded into one enormous market of mutual opportunity?” In such a scenario, Rudd could see only a binary choice for India: it should either “bandwagon” with China or “balance” China.
Rudd must be a terribly disappointed man to see that there could be a Third Way. China is not really expecting anyone to “bandwagon” with it. Its DNA is similar to India’s — pursuit of national interests while retaining strategic autonomy (even with regard to its partner Russia.)
China takes satisfaction that India treasures its strategic autonomy. Its expectation is only that India should not align with the US to pursue hostile policies. That is perfectly understandable, too.
A consensus with China that neither party will try to gain territorial advantage is the maximum that can be expected today and the irreducible minimum required until such time as the Indian opinion can accept a fair and just settlement of the boundary question in a spirit of compromise.
Notably, Chinese commentators have appreciated EAM Jaishankar’s forceful remarks through March-April enunciating India’s oil purchases from Russia giving primacy to national interests. Conceivably, such assertion of India’s strategic autonomy created a favourable ambience in the ongoing talks at various levels with China, leading to the disengagement in Gogra-Hotsprings.
China and India have many common interests in the emergent world order. Only two days ago, PM’s remarks at the Eastern Economic Forum plenary at Vladivostok signalled India’s interest to work with Russia in the Arctic (where China is also a participant) as also in the Northern Sea Route (where China too is a stakeholder).
By the way, the Russia-China Joint Statement on the International Relations Entering a New Era and the Global Sustainable Development (February 4, 2022)speaks about the two countries “consistently intensifying practical cooperation for the sustainable development of the Arctic” as well as the “development and use of Arctic routes.”
There is no empirical evidence to show that China has blocked India’s pathway in the Arctic or the Russian Far East, Southeast Asia, Central Asia or West Asia. The disengagement in Ladakh gives hope that the bilateral relations can be restored, especially in the economic sphere. There is no question that India should be vigilant about its defence and national security. But to be paranoid about it or getting entrapped in xenophobic attitudes will be wasteful and ultimately debilitating.
Samizdat – 10.09.2022
Since the beginning of the ongoing Russian special military operation in Ukraine, Washington has supplied Kiev with unprecedented amounts of funding, not least military assistance worth a total of at least $54 billion, according to the New York Times.
Republican Senator Rand Paul has lashed out at what he describes as a huge gap between Congress’ priorities and those of normal US constituents, especially when it comes to funding programs.
Speaking to Fox News, Paul argued that there’s an “enormous disconnect between those in Washington and those on the ground, like in Kentucky,” his home state which was hit by “severe” flooding in late July in which 40 people died and “hundreds of homes were lost”.
The Republican pointed to a total $54 billion dollars of funding that Washington has reportedly sent to Kiev since the beginning of Russia’s ongoing special operation to demilitarize and de-Nazify Ukraine on February 24. According to the senator, this sharply contrasts with the fact that Kentucky and much of Appalachia has struggled with serious infrastructure issues for decades.
“I was just out there,” Paul claimed. “Not one person said, ‘Can you please send more money to Ukraine?’ They said, ‘How come we’re a rich country and we’re having trouble digging our ditches, repairing our roads and all of the basic functions of government?’”
“And yet in Washington, it’s not just Democrats. You’ve got Democrats and all the Republican leadership lining up saying, ‘Please send more of our money to Ukraine,’ but I’m not hearing it at home at all,” he said.
Paul suggested that billions of taxpayer dollars pertaining to foreign assistance could be better spent at home on infrastructure-related issues, adding that these hefty sums could also help Americans ride out soaring inflation and energy crisis.
Referring to the US’ total national debt, Paul said, “We’re $30 trillion in the hole and it’s inflationary”. According to him, “You borrow more money to buy weapons. It also causes inflation. And so really what I hear still around Kentucky and around the U.S. is, ‘My gas costs so much. We can’t go on vacation this year. The groceries cost so much […]”.
In an apparent nod to constituents, the senator argued that, “They all instinctively know this is from the massive debts, the massive borrowing, and the huge COVID lockdowns and all the mistakes that were foisted upon us by Democrats, by Biden, by the Democrat Congress.” Paul warned that he thinks that “there’s a huge wave building”.
The remarks followed US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin announcing that the White House had approved another $675 million in military assistance to Kiev, which includes howitzers, shells, Humvees, armored ambulances and anti-tank systems, among other weapons and munitions. Moscow has repeatedly warned Washington that supplying Kiev with arms will only prolong and aggravate the Ukraine conflict.
Gilbert Doctorow | September 9, 2022
The UK and Commonwealth may be mourning the passing of Queen Elizabeth II yesterday. I am in mourning as well, but for a very different reason: the gathering in the Ramstein air base in Germany yesterday reshuffled the deck on Western military and financial assistance to Ukraine, raising contributions to the ongoing holy crusade against Russia from still more nations and adding new, still more advanced precision strike weapons to the mix of deliveries to Kiev. It was an open summons to the Kremlin to escalate in turn, as were the test firing the same day of a new intercontinental rocket, the Minuteman III, from Vandenberg air base in California and the unannounced visit to Kiev yesterday of not only Secretary of State Antony Blinken, who was featured in Western media accounts, but also other top officials of the Biden administration. The most notorious member of this delegation was surely Blinken’s deputy, Victoria Nuland, who had stage managed the February 2014 coup that put in power in Kiev the Russia-hating regime that Zelensky now heads.
The Russians may be compelled to take the bait due to the course of military action on the ground. As now becomes clear, they have just suffered some losses in very heavy ground and artillery fighting these past few days around Kharkov. The Ukrainian gains were facilitated by the advanced weaponry recently arrived from NATO countries, by the targeting data they are receiving from the U.S. and from off-stage tactical direction from NATO officers. By ‘take the bait,’ I mean the Russians may escalate to all out war on Ukraine. This question figured prominently in yesterday’s major news and political talk show programs of Russian state television. I will go into these matters in some detail below.
Regrettably, all of the foregoing also obliges me to revisit the critique I published a couple of weeks ago on the latest essay in Foreign Affairs magazine by John Mearsheimer. His overarching message on the dangers of our stumbling into a nuclear war is better substantiated by the latest developments, even though I believe that Mearsheimer failed to identify the several successive steps that lie ahead before we find ourselves in such a war. Mearsheimer oversimplified Russian options to deal with setbacks on the ground. This also will be a central issue in my narrative below.
Finally, in this essay I will direct attention to the second dimension of the ongoing confrontation between Russia and the entire Collective West: the economic war being waged on the Russian Federation via sanctions, which now far outnumber those directed against any other country on earth. This war, as I will argue, is going well for the Russians. More importantly for us all, it is the sole area in which the peoples of Europe may have a say in putting an end to the mad policies being pursued by their national governments under the direct pressure of Washington.
*****
Over the past ten days, we have witnessed the start of the Ukrainian counter-offensive which was preceded by so much anticipation in Western media. A reversal of Russian fortunes in the war was predicted, leading to the stalemate or outright defeat for Russia which Mearsheimer and some other analysts in the US foreign policy community feared would trigger a nuclear response from the Kremlin.
In fact, the Ukrainian counter-offensive got off to a very bad start. It opened in the south, in the Kherson region. Kherson, which is predominantly Russian-speaking, was the first major Ukrainian city to fall to the Russians and it has strategic importance for ensuring Russian domination of the Black Sea littoral. However, first results of the Ukrainian attacks there were disastrous for the Ukrainian armed forces. It soon was obvious that they had deployed new recruits who had little or no military experience. The infantry attacked across open terrain where they were easily destroyed in vast numbers by the Russian defenders of Kherson. I have heard the figure of 5,000 Ukrainian casualties in the Kherson counter offensive. Obviously the Russians were jubilant, though there were reports of some Ukrainian reservists being withdrawn from the field of action for redeployment elsewhere.
What followed was something the Russians evidently did not expect, namely a well prepared and implemented assault on their positions around the northeastern city of Kharkov, Ukraine’s second largest city. Kharkov was briefly surrounded by Russian forces at the start of the war, but was left in relative peace as the Russians refocused their strategy on taking the Donbas and avoiding major urban warfare except in one place, Mariupol. Exactly what the Russian game plan has been was recently explained in a remarkable paper published by a certain ‘Marinus’ in the Marine Corps Gazette.
A couple of days ago I picked up the following amidst the chatter of panelists on Evening with Vladimir Solovyov: “yes, we made some mistakes, but it is inevitable in a war that mistakes are made.” As from the latest news on the apparent loss of Balakliya and surrounding villages on the outskirts of Kharkov, we can see that the Ukrainian tactics were precisely those which Russia had been using so effectively against them from day one of the ‘special military operation,’ namely a feint in one war zone followed by all-out attack on a very different region. Of course, the ‘feint’ around Kherson, if that is what it was, entailed the cynical sacrifice of thousands of young and not so young Ukrainian foot soldiers. But the resultant distraction prevented the Russians from bringing up sufficient manpower to successfully defend their positions around Kharkov, which include the strategically important city of Izyum.
Izyum is close to the Russian-Ukrainian border southeast of Kharkov and is a major logistical base for munitions and weaponry that are sent onward to support the Donbas operation. The latest information on the Russian side appears to be that the Russians have now dispatched large numbers of reservists to this area to hold their positions. They also speak of intense artillery duels. We may well assume that both sides have experienced heavy loss of life. As yet, the outcome is unforeseeable. Meanwhile, Russian war correspondents on the ground in Donetsk insist that the Russian advance towards Slavyansk, in the center of the former Donetsk oblast, is continuing without pause, which suggests that the strikes on their munitions stores claimed by the Ukrainians have not been totally effective. If Slavyansk is taken in the coming few weeks, then Russia will quickly assume control of the entire territory of the Donbas.
In last night’s talk show program, host Vladimir Solovyov said that this latest push in the Ukrainian counter-offensive was timed to coincide with the gathering at the Ramstein air base, Germany of top officials from NATO and other allies under the direction of the visiting U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin. If the Ukrainian efforts were failing in the field, then the cry would go up: we must provide them with more weapons and training. And if the Ukrainian efforts in the counter-offensive were succeeding, those in attendance at Ramstein would hear exactly the same appeal to aid Kiev.
Though Evening with Solovyov, on air from about 23.00 Moscow time, offered viewers some few minutes of video recordings from the opening of the Ramstein gathering, far more complete coverage was provided to Russian audiences a few hours earlier by the afternoon news show Sixty Minutes. Here, nearly half an hour on air was given over to lengthy excerpts from CNN and other U.S. and European mainstream television reporting about Ramstein. Host Yevgeni Popov read the Russian translation of the various Western news bulletins. His presentation clearly sought to dramatize the threat and to set off alarm bells.
For his part, Vladimir Solovyov went beyond presentation of the threat posed by the United States and its allies to analysis of Russia’s possible response. He spoke at length, and we may assume that what he was saying had the direct approval of the Kremlin, because his guests, who are further removed from Power than he is, were, for the most part, allowed only to talk blather, such as the critique by one panelist of a recent pro-Ukraine, anti-Russia article in The New York Review of Books by Yale professor Timothy Snyder, who counts for nothing in the big strategic issues Russia faces today.
So, what did Solovyov have to say? First, that Ramstein marked a new stage in the war, because of the more threatening nature of the weapons systems announced for delivery, such as missiles with accuracy of 1 to 2 meters when fired from distances of 20 or 30 kilometers thanks to their GPS-guided flight, in contrast to the laser-guided missiles delivered to Ukraine up till now. In the same category, there are weapons designed to destroy the Russians’ radar systems used for directing artillery fire. Second, that Ramstein marked the further expansion of the coalition or holy crusade waging war on Russia. Third, that in effect this is no longer a proxy war but a real direct war with NATO and should be prosecuted with appropriate mustering of all resources at home and abroad.
Said Solovyov, Russia should throw off constraints and destroy the Ukrainian dual use infrastructure which makes it possible to move Western weapons across the country to the front. The railway system, the bridges, the electricity generating stations all should become fair targets. Moreover, Kiev should no longer be spared missile strikes and destruction of the ministries and presidential apparatus responsible for prosecution of the war. I note that these ideas were aired on the Solovyov program more than a month ago but then disappeared from view while the Russians were making great gains on the ground. The latest setbacks and the new risks associated with the Western policies set out at Ramstein bring them to the surface again.
Solovyov also argued that Russia should now use in Ukraine its own most advanced weapons that have similar characteristics to what NATO is delivering to the other side. As a sub-point, Russia should consider neutralizing in one way or another the GPS guidance for U.S. weapons. Of course, if this means destroying or blinding the respective U.S. satellites, that would mean crossing a well-known U.S. red line or casus belli.
Next, in the new circumstances, Russia should abandon its go-it-alone policy and actively seek out complementary weapons systems from previously untouchable countries, such as Iran and North Korea. Procurements from both have till now been minimal. On this issue, a couple of panelists with military expertise were allowed to explain that both these countries have sophisticated and proven weapons that could greatly assist Russia’s war effort. Iran has unbeatable drones which carry hefty explosive charges and have proven their worth in operations that are unmentionable on public television. And North Korea has very effective tanks and highly portable field artillery which are both fully compatible with Russian military practice, because the designs were based on Chinese weapons, which in turn were copies of Russia’s own. These weapons also have shown their worth in the hands of unnamed purchasers in the Middle East. Moreover, North Korea has a vast store of munitions fully compatible with Russian artillery. It was also mentioned in passing that insofar as Kiev has mobilized in the field many Western mercenaries and covert NATO officers, Russia should also recruit from abroad, as for example, whole brigades from North Korea available for hire.
If any of these ideas put out by Solovyov last night are indeed implemented by the Kremlin, then the present confrontation in and over Ukraine will truly become globalized, and we have the outlines of what may be called World War III. However, I note that the use of nuclear weapons, tactical or otherwise, does not figure at all in the set of options that official Moscow discusses in relation to the challenges it faces in its Ukraine operation. Such a possibility would arise only if the NATO forces being sent to the EU’s ‘front line states’ grew in number by several times those presently assigned and appeared to be preparing to invade Russia.
*****
Before Ramstein, before the news of Ukrainian successes on the ground in the Kharkov sector, I had plans to write about a very different development this past week that coincided with a different calendar: the end of summer vacations and return to work of our national governments. With the return, our presidents and prime ministers would finally have to address the critical state of the European economies, which are facing the highest inflation rates in decades and an energy crisis brought about by the sanctions on Russian hydrocarbons. Speculation was rife on what exactly they would do.
I was particularly struck by several articles in the 7 September edition of The Financial Times and planned to comment on them.
For months now, the FT has been the voice of Number 10, Downing Street, at the vanguard of the Western crusade to crush Russia. Their editorial board has consistently backed every proposal for sanctions against Russia, however hare-brained. And yet on the 7th their journalists ran away with the show and cast doubt on the basic assumptions held by their bosses. One article by Derek Brower in the “FT Energy Source” newsletter has the self-explanatory title “The price cap idea that could worsen the energy crisis.” As we saw today, Brower’s concern was misplaced: finally, the EU could not agree a price cap policy. This notion, promoted from the United States by none other than the Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen, is in full contradiction with the practices of the global hydrocarbon market, as even a few EU leaders understood, depriving the initiators from the Baltic States of their hoped for consensus.
Another article of the 7th in FT, by Valentina Pop, Europe Express Editor, analyzed quickly and competently the problems facing European policy-makers in their bid to alleviate the pain to households and industry that the latest electricity and heating bills would otherwise present, given that they are several times higher than just a year ago and are unaffordable by large swathes of the population. Pop identified the key issue thus: how to provide aid quickly to those most in need given the constraints and resources available to the various government bureaucracies: “Some capitals will take many months in determining which households require help” she says. Of course, ‘many months’ of patience in the broad population will not be there.
But the most surprising article in this collection from the 7th was in the “Opinion Lex” section of the paper which was nominally about how Russian banks have weathered the storm that broke out when the EU sanctions on their industry first were laid down shortly after the start of Russia’s ‘special military operation.’ Indeed, VTB and other major Russian banks have returned to profitability despite it all. The author finds that ‘sanctions are biting less than western politicians hoped.’ Not only did the expected banking crisis not materialize, but the ruble is at five-year peaks and inflation is falling. Moreover the official Russian financial data behind these generalizations is said to be sound by independent and trustworthy market observers. The key conclusions are saved for last: “Russia has shown it can bear the pain of western sanctions. Western Europe must endure reprisals as robustly, or concede a historic defeat.’ The ‘reprisals’ in question are the complete shutdown of Russian gas deliveries through Nord Stream I until Europe lifts its sanctions.
It is interesting that even the Opinion article by NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg published on the 7th in FT carries the following grim warning: “We face a difficult six months, with the threat of energy cuts, disruptions and perhaps even civil unrest.’ [emphasis mine]
To be sure, here and there in Europe, there are a few clever administrators who find promising solutions to the pending crisis of energy bills. In her first day in office, Britain’s new Prime Minister Liz Truss announced one such solution: to immediately freeze the maximum energy bill per household at the present level of 2500 pounds sterling per year and then to turn around and agree with the power companies a subsidy for them to cover their losses.
This is fine for nipping in the bud possible ‘civil unrest.’ But the question remains how Britain will finance the estimated 150 billion pounds this will cost in the first year alone. If a similar solution were approved in the EU, the overall cost would surely approach the 800 billion euros of assistance borrowed to cover losses attributable to the Covid pandemic a year ago. But whereas the Covid aid was financed by collective borrowing of the EU, no such solidarity is likely to deal with the energy crisis, given that Germany, the Netherlands and other northern Member States oppose this becoming a general practice and will apply a veto. The British solution, however clever it may be, will hardly be available to many countries in the EU on their own given their high state indebtedness.
Then there is the second question of what to do to assist industry. Failure to give industry proper relief will result in company closures and rampant unemployment, which finally also sparks political protest. In any case, such solutions do not deal with the knock-on effects of vastly increased government borrowing to finance the energy subsidies, something which in the best of times always reduces capital available for other government services and capital available to private business for investment and job creation.
These various problems in dealing with the energy crisis that Europe created for itself by imposing sanctions on Russia may well be intractable and may well lead to spontaneous protests in a number of European countries this fall.
There is no anti-war movement on the Old Continent to speak of. So popular protests over the ‘heat or eat’ dilemma being imposed from the chanceries on the people without anything resembling public debate may be the salvation of us all if they induce war mongering politicans to resign.
By Valery Kulikov – New Eastern Outlook – 10.09.2022
The total powerlessness of the current US authorities (visible even on the face of their president) striving for a unipolar world, against the background of the ongoing removal of the United States from the “global throne,” is forcing mentally exhausted US strategists to jump into more and more failing adventures.
By unleashing a Russophobic sanctions policy and imposing it through Washington’s long-prepared coalition of a “new wave” of pro-American military and political elites in Europe, the United States has not only doomed itself to further defeat – it has also blatantly thrown Europe and its current ruling establishment under the bus by making them responsible for the current financial, economic and energy crisis the US has triggered. As a result, there is growing resentment among Europeans of the policies of their overtly Washington-oriented rulers, which could turn into mass protests in the coming days. These could undoubtedly sweep away not only governments in many European countries, but could also give further impetus to similar political “adjustments” in the United States itself.
And this process of “change” has already begun with demonstrations in Leipzig, Cologne and other German cities against the blatantly “anti-people” policies of Chancellor Scholz and Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock, and their overt adherence to instructions from Washington to the detriment of national interests.
Mass protests are sweeping the Czech Republic, as some 70,000 people took to the streets on September 3, dissatisfied with the government policies and capable, according to German newspaper Die Welt, of rocking protest rallies in Germany even further.
Anti-government demonstrations, according to the Independent, also began in Britain, just after Liz Truss was appointed, outside the prime minister’s residence.
Realizing the inevitability of this protest wave spilling over the ocean and the threat of impeachment of the current US administration by Americans, the White House unfortunately sees the chance of prolonging the existence of the current political elite not in adjusting its domestic and foreign policies, but in unleashing a big war, in the expectation that it will serve to justify all the blunders of the authorities.
Meanwhile, the position of the Biden administration has strained US relations with two superpowers, Russia and China, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger stressed in an August interview with The Wall Street Journal. As a member of the old conservative school, Kissinger, despite viewing Russia and China as enemies, takes the “wise” approach of the long-term political and diplomatic game of “pitting” enemies against each other to facilitate the task of defeating them, rather than unleashing a straight war with an unclear end, which he calls an imbalance and dangerous equivocation. “We are at the edge of war with Russia and China on issues which we partly created, without any concept of how this is going to end or what it’s supposed to lead to,” Kissinger pointed out.
For the past two years, the American establishment has become quite open about its plans to “contain” Russia and China. Specifically, the plan was to first unleash a conflict with Russia at the hands of the US proxies in Ukraine and then finish Moscow off with sanctions, in the hope that it would quickly lose, swallow its pride and bow down to Washington. In the next phase of their confrontation with Moscow and Beijing, the White House “wise men” intended to pit their proxies in Taiwan against China, expecting to defeat the Chinese adversary as well.
Suddenly, however, these plans were thwarted, as were the hopes for Joe Biden’s political and mental longevity. And just as Biden’s doctors’ “energizers” are not helping him, so have the anti-Russian sanctions, which led Europe to an energy collapse, and virtually all of NATO weapons redeployed by Washington to Ukraine not brought about a victory over Moscow. But they have left the EU without arms to ensure its own security, and without gas, for which the Europeans intend to hold accountable not only their own authorities, but Washington as well.
Not fazed by the clear defeat of the chosen strategy, Washington nevertheless intends to place particular emphasis in the near future on unleashing an armed confrontation with Moscow and Beijing in the Pacific theater. In particular, by exacerbating the situation in the Taiwan Strait and pumping more and more weapons into Taiwan, following the Ukraine model, and by switching to a confrontation with Russia in the Far East. A concrete confirmation of these plans was the large article by military analyst Cropsey, posted on the Hong Kong-based online resource Asia Times. It proposes to rectify Washington’s failure in Ukraine by increasing confrontation with the Russian Navy in the Far East, in the hope that something will come of it.
With such provocative and ill-considered policies, the US is heading for a third world war and does not even realize it, The Hill reports.
But the senile “wise men” in the White House are completely oblivious to the fact that Russia and China are now in the best relationship they have ever had. And not only in the sphere of trade and political interaction, but also in the military sphere, conducting regular joint exercises, including in potential hot spots such as the Sea of Japan. Not to mention the combined military potential of the PRC and Russia, including in nuclear weapons. Especially considering that Russian resources and technology plus Chinese industrial production make it possible to replenish their military capabilities almost indefinitely, which cannot be said of NATO.
And in the heat of its phobias and its desire to survive at all costs, Washington does not want to heed warnings about the obvious inadvisability of waging a two-front war, from either its politicians, in particular Henry Kissinger, or from the independent US media (independent of the White House, that is). In particular, The National Interest has shown quite objectively and justifiably that America cannot simultaneously confront China and Russia in a war, because with the current budget deficit America’s military capabilities are insufficient and in these circumstances American “strategists” need to accept the reality of a US defeat in the event of such a military conflict. The publication therefore recommends that instead of trying to challenge and contain Russia and China along their borders and coastal seas, the United States should pursue some, albeit limited, satisfaction of its vital interests through diplomacy.
By Roger Watson | TCW Defending Freedom | September 9, 2022
If you are not a daily recipient of the Global Health Now (GHN) newsletter, I strongly advise against starting. I do these things so you don’t have to. After all, I am not averse to a bit of ‘global health’ provided it is evidence-based, equitable, necessary and does not require me to start wiping my bottom with leaves.
The concept of global health now seems to be a platform for highlighting inequities we can do little about, guilt induction among the populations of Western countries and most recently conveying panic generated in Geneva at the WHO about relatively mild diseases to the rest of the world. In fact, global health is the superhighway along which the panic-laden WHO buses travel. No sooner has one bus gone (Covid-19) than another one (monkeypox) comes along.
It took them longer than I expected but they have got there now. Recent issues of GHN have been highlighting similarities between Covid-19 and monkeypox. Recently GHN reported how the ‘US monkeypox outbreak is marked by vaccine disparities’. Apparently ‘black people make up a third of US monkeypox cases but have received 10 per cent of vaccine doses’; this is being ascribed to ‘distrust of the medical establishment’.
That would be the medical establishment which recommended locking them down for nearly two years, wearing disgusting face masks which everyone knew did not work, and enforcing vaccine mandates and vaccine passports for a vaccine which was not necessary, did not work and is known to be potentially harmful. All power to the elbows of black Americans who have seen the light over the medical establishment ahead of the rest of the population.
Meanwhile, monkeypox has been ‘jostling’ the experts’ understanding of the disease. Once thought not to be transmitted asymptomatically, they now think that it can be. Bet you never saw that one coming. In further news, monkeypox patients are ‘exhibiting a plethora of symptoms not previously linked to the disease’ including ‘lesions in the throat or rectum’; but we have been here before in these pages.
A worrying symptom associated with monkeypox has been uncovered: it is ‘inflammation of the heart’, also referred to as myocarditis or heart muscle inflammation, which I am sure is receiving maximum attention and being played for all it is worth in an effort to get people lined up for jabs. It is worth noting that the above is based on a single case report and it ‘highlights the possibility of cardiac manifestations in patients with monkeypox infection’.
Contrast that with the known and widespread risk of myocarditis among young males following Covid-19 vaccines, the demonstrable increase in deaths among professional footballers (compulsorily vaccinated) on the field of play and the concomitant reaction described in the American Heart Association’s flagship journal Circulation as ‘rare and mild’.
Here is what that rare and mild condition can do to you: first ‘reduce the heart’s ability to pump blood. Myocarditis can cause chest pain, shortness of breath, and rapid or irregular heart rhythms (arrhythmias)’; then ‘if left untreated, myocarditis may lead to symptoms of heart failure, where your heart has trouble pumping blood the way it should. In rare cases, it leads to other problems, such as cardiomyopathy’. But not to worry, apparently ‘many people with myocarditis go on to recover completely’ but ‘the condition can also cause permanent damage to the heart muscle. This can lead to complications like arrhythmia and heart failure’. And it should only lay you low for six weeks; who wouldn’t want some of that?
If ever there was evidence for the social construction of diseases, we now have it in abundance. Just as with the ‘social construction of reality’ (Berger & Luckman if you can stand to read it) whereby nothing is real until it is experienced, and the reality depends on who is experiencing it, we have the same with these infections. The symptoms are clearly context-dependent and depending on what the context of the sufferer is, for example of myocarditis, they may or may not be taken seriously.
Samizdat | September 9, 2022
Germany’s government is the “stupidest” in Europe for managing to embroil itself in a full-blown “economic war” with its top energy supplier, Russia, left-wing politician Sahra Wagenknecht said on Thursday.
Speaking in the Bundestag, the former co-chair of the party Die Linke (The Left) urged an end to anti-Russian sanctions and the resignation of the country’s vice chancellor and economy minister, Robert Habeck.
While describing the ongoing conflict in Ukraine as a “crime,” Wagenknecht said the anti-Russian sanctions are “fatal” for Germany itself. With energy prices out of control, the country’s economy will soon “just be a reminder of the good old days,” the MP warned, as she urged canceling the restrictions and engaging in talks with Russia.
“We really have the stupidest government in Europe,” she told the parliament, calling for Habeck to resign.
“The biggest problem is your grandiose idea of launching an unprecedented economic war against our most important energy supplier.”
“The idea that we are punishing Putin by impoverishing millions of families in Germany and destroying our industry while Gazprom is making record profits – how stupid is that?” Wagenknecht wondered.
The controversial speech met quite a mixed reaction, with Wagenknecht’s remarks scoring applause in the Bundestag from MPs of polar opposite political views, including members of the right-wing Alternative for Germany (AfD). However, multiple left-wing politicians rushed to distance themselves from Wagenknecht’s statements and condemn her.
“The party’s position on sanctions against Russia was decided at the last federal party conference. There is no ‘economic war against Russia.’ Russia is at war with Ukraine,” the former co-chair of Die Linke, Bernd Riexinger, tweeted, adding that there must be “no doubt” about whom the party backs in the ongoing conflict.
Former left-wing MP Niema Movassat went even further, taking to Twitter to call for Wagenknecht to be excluded from his parliamentary group. The politician’s remarks contradict “a lot of” what the party agrees on, and she should be punished for “acting against” Die Linke, Movassat suggested.
Samizdat | September 9, 2022
Russia is interested in welcoming tourists from all over the world, even from “unfriendly nations,” Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said during a conference call on Friday.
Peskov was asked to clarify President Vladimir Putin’s comments on Wednesday that Moscow would not be introducing any visa restrictions on foreign citizens in retaliation for similar measures imposed by the EU.
“The main point that the president was trying to get across was that we will continue to do what suits our interests,” the spokesperson explained, adding that introducing mirror countermeasures against the West is not always in Russia’s interests.
“Of course, illegal, criminal and raider attitudes towards our businesses will be met with reciprocal steps, but these measures will be reasonable and carefully calculated,” Peskov said, noting that Russia welcomes those who are willing to invest in the country.
He added that Russia remains just as inviting to foreign tourists, including those from countries that Moscow considers “unfriendly.”
“After all, people need to see our country and they need to understand that what they are shown and told about Russia in their home countries is a lie,” the Kremlin spokesperson stated, noting that the only way to explain this to people is by inviting them to Russia to see the country for themselves.
Nevertheless, Peskov warned that any “inappropriate behavior” towards Russian diplomats or representatives of Russian foreign delegations would be met with mirror responses in accordance with the reciprocal rule of diplomacy.
The Kremlin’s comments come as the European Council officially announced on Friday that it would be scrapping the so-called Visa Facilitation Deal between Russia and the EU, citing Moscow’s ongoing military operation in Ukraine. The agreement had simplified visa application procedures for Russian citizens.
Starting Monday, however, Russians will have to pay visa application fees of €80, instead of the previous €35, and will have to provide significantly more documentation, endure longer processing times and be subject to much stricter rules for the issuance of multiple-entry visas.
Meanwhile, countries such as Poland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania have announced they would be closing their borders to all Russian tourists, even those with a valid Schengen visa. The only exceptions will be made for those traveling to see relatives or for humanitarian reasons.
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
Saudi Arabia on the American chessboard – Part 2
By B. J. Sabri | American Herald Tribune | April 19, 2016
Since the Korean War, but particularly since the Iranian Revolution of 1979 until today, the United States has been steadily escalating its military presence in the Persian Gulf. Taking advantage of many colossal events of the past 36 years, [1] the hyper-empire has institutionalized its massive presence on land and sea, and expanded its objectives to include the unambiguous physical control of the area, as well as the clear understanding that local Arab governments should abide by them. The pretext is always the same: in “defense” of the national interests and security of the United States. From observing how the United States has been interacting with the governments of the region, and by judging from the size of its expeditionary force, we could reach a basic conclusion. The United States is occupying, de facto, the entire Arabian Peninsula. (Yemen, devastated by Saudi and American jets is yet to be conquered. Oman? Britain returned not as colonial ruler but as a soft occupying power.)
Under this articulation, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates are virtually occupied countries. If we compare this type of occupation to the mandate and protectorate regimes of the past, the results might be identical—the nations affected by it lose sovereignty. When Arab governments comply with the objectives of a foreign power that station military forces on their national milieu, then that power controls them in multiple ways including how they react to policy deliberations and what decisions they intend to take on specific issues. A good method to verify the concept of effective occupation is this: take notice of what the United States says and wants, and then compare it to what the gulf rulers do in response. (I shall discuss this detail at some point in the upcoming parts.)
If the presence of US forces or other means of political pressure are a factor in Saudi Arabia’s interventionist Arab wars, then we need to debate this issue. However, from the history of resistance to colonialism, we learnt: if a powerful state imposes its order on a nation by military means or other forms of coercion, and if this nation does not resist that imposition, then a mental subordination to the powerful state will ensue. This is especially true in the case of Saudi Arabia. One single event, 9/11, has transformed it from a US “ally” into an instant political hostage of the American Empire. … continue
Aletho News If Americans Knew No Tricks Zone
Aletho News 